Tantek Çelik wrote:
It seems to me that title would not make sense for content (except
for in the case of the abbr-datetime pattern). Alt seems more
meaningful here.
Agreed.
In general we should not be using "title" for this kind of purpose
unless
*absolutely* necessary, like in the abbr-datetime pattern, as Ryan
pointed
it.
The rule still is to keep the data as visible as possible. We made an
exception in the abbr-datetime case only because of another rule
which is
humans first, machines second.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but it doesn't seem to me that using
alt for machine data follows the humans first principle because
imageless humans are reading alt tags. As a human, I'd hate to be
reading something like this in a screen reader:
<img class="bday" src="today.png" alt="20051215T080000Z" />
And my first inclination would be to give imageless humans something
more readable by putting the machine data in the title attribute
instead, e.g.:
<img class="bday" src="today.png" alt="December 15, 2005"
title="20051215T080000Z" />
This is sending three different types of data to three different
types of readers. src is for imaged humans, alt is for imageless
humans, and title is for machines. I understand the drawback of
further complication, but the alternative seems to require authors to
choose between usability and microformats.
Peace,
Scott
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
